When it comes to issues related to foreign policy, Obama is anything but upside.  Although I respect him, and it sort of excites me to see a candidate of good moral character, I become frustrated over his stance on the Iraq war.  Eleana, our premier left leaning blogger seemed deeply concerned over the Iraq war, and she should be.  I respect her for her understanding that the war is the single most important issue going on right now, and that the candidates show a stark difference from each other on how to proceed from this point.

The problem is Obama (and Clinton) fail to articulate a strategy for victory - I fail to find a single instance where they use that audacious word.  The objective is to minimize defeat, not to win, and our nation was not made great by minimizing defeat.  I've asked over and over again, how do the democrats plan on achieving victory by drawing down troop levels?  And the answer I get is blank.  The point is this: I want an answer not because I'm trying to drive my own political agenda for McCain, but because I love the idea of withdrawal - IF IT WORKS. 

The war was extremely difficult for me to deal with while I left my family while I fought and worked over there, and now I'm looking at the prospect of going again.  Electing a democratic president would significantly reduce the chance of that happening and that is very appealing to me.  But. . .

How does a withdrawal keep militias from overtaking the scene and sweeping genocide from occuring?

How does a withdrawal keep Iran at bay?

How does a withdrawal keep Kurdistan from becoming completely autonomous and moving into open war with Turkey, Syria and possibly Iran?

How does a withdrawal keep oil from doubling in price after production halts?

When McCain asks Obama these questions, I'm not sure he will have an answer, and that is not good for him.  But hey, if anyone can answer the questions I pose, I will gladly vote for Obama as our next president.  But I doubt it will happen because even Hillary, when asked very similar questions point blank, failed to answer anything that made even the slightest bit of sense.  Even though the war has proven disasterous for the GOP and our president, the American people will still have the sense to ask not "what do we want to do?" but "what should we do?"  That is where Obama, as far as I can tell, totally fails.

Good points.

I had been examining Obama's possibilities of becoming president, and I hadn't really thought much about his foreign policy. I am glad that you opened the debate.

Your questions above were posed to a Democratic-leaning blogger from the Treasure Valley. That individual chose to respond as such:

... "Three words, Ike. Iraq Study Group.

We could go for hours on what victory means, no candidate has defined it.

And at what cost?

The question you have to ask yourself is whether the interests of the US are being furthered with our continued presence there.

Nobody desires a power vacuum. The key is to negotiate the withdrawal in conjunction with the neighbors. From what I can see we have no state department anymore.

I thought this wasn't about oil?" ...

McCain has defined victory, and it is pretty simple:  A stable, liberal democracy that is capable of operating autonomously and as an ally to the war on terror.  That's not too difficult.  I don't get what all the run around is about.

To answer your other question: is ... the interests of the US are being furthered with our continued presence there[?]  Our interests lie in achieving victory as defined above.  Victory not only serves the American people, but the Iraqi's as well.  How is victory achieved?

Working in conjunction with Iraq's neighbors towards withdrawal sounds like a good plan I guess, but how exactly does that this work with Iran - who is actively working against us in Iraq? (I've already asked this question, of which I'm waiting for a response.)  Somehow I think it is a little silly to think that Iran's ambitions in the middle east can somehow be curbed by diplomacy.  But you never know.  We always have Jimmy Carter...

Also, if I may add some more points (after reading your response more closely Michael)

In World War II, the US spent 38% of the GDP towards the war effort.  Today we are spending less than 1%.  In World War II, the US lost over 400,000 troops.  Today, the current death toll is 1/100th of that.  Nobody today debates whether victory was "worth it" despite the horrific sacrifice that America paid to settle a war over on another continent.  Now I realize that the analogy to WWII isn't entirely fair, the point is clear and simple: we can't give up when it gets hard.  We have to remember that the cost of defeat not only affects us, but the Iraqi people, where things stand to get a lot worse for them than it ever has.

Since the surge, things have gotten better.  Far from perfect, but better.  We are moving in the right direction.  Obama's "upside" is to change directions, and I'm thinking that is the wrong direction.  I have long disapproved of Bush's conduct of this war, but my love for this country, and the Iraqi people (many of whom I got to know personally) is greater than my disapproval for my president.

I don't understand the "Iraq Study Group" comment. Can someone expound a bit?

On the Iraq Study Group", I believe that the blogger who responded is citing a study done by a US War College, saying that the war was a mistake, and why. I will check back and see if I can get the citation.

-- Michael

Here is the Iraq Study Group Info:

USIP was the facilitating organization for the Iraq Study Group (ISG), co-chaired by James A. Baker, III, and Lee H. Hamilton. As such, USIP is the repository for the ISG’s official report, titled The Iraq Study Group Report: The Way Forward - A New Approach, which was downloaded more than 1.5 million times from USIP's Web site in the first two weeks after the launch of the report on December 6, 2006.

USIP facilitated the bipartisan ISG at the urging of Congress. The ISG’s mandate was to conduct a forward-looking, independent assessment of the current and prospective situation on the ground in Iraq, its impact on the surrounding region, and consequences for U.S. interests. Three organizations supported USIP in its work facilitating the ISG: the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), the Center for the Study of the Presidency (CSP), and the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy at Rice University.

As facilitator, USIP provided scholarly and logistical support to the ISG. It maintained an in-house Iraq expert committee and external Expert Working Groups that provided the ISG with the briefing papers and policy analyses that helped them reach their conclusions. It also coordinated the ISG’s interviews with top U.S. and foreign officials and led the group’s trip to Iraq in the Summer of 2006.

This site contains information about the ISG’s work from its inception in March 2006. It provides timelines, member bios, information about the Expert Working Groups, transcripts of news events, and other information.

USIP in Iraq

USIP has been operating on the ground in Iraq since 2004, working with Iraqis to reduce interethnic and interreligious violence, speed up stabilization and democratization, and reduce the need for a U.S. presence in Iraq. More information about our in-country Iraq programs and other Iraq-related work can be found here.